Media: Before the camera or behind the camera?

Garnett Roper, GUEST COLUMNIST

One of the outcomes that has drawn commentary and analysis recently is that the media have become the news, or at least inextricably intertwined with the news.

In the recent coverage of the bombing in Boston, the major networks have come in for criticism for what has been called irresponsible reporting. All admit that this is the result of the intensely competitive environment that the media operate in - where the highest ratings are reserved only for those who first break the story. Therefore, in order to beat the 'other network', one needs to get the camera and the microphone as close as possible to the scene of the action and eventually the reporter ends up in front of the camera, rather than behind it.

Recent events on the political scene in Jamaica have catapulted sections of the media into being the news, rather than bringing the news. It is not clear that this is to be explained by competition among media houses, because in that respect it would be hard to determine the intended prize. Unless, of course, that prize is which media house or practitioner is most effective in precipitating the collapse of the Simpson Miller Government. Three incidents recently make this a moot question. It is not unusual in the game of political one-upmanship for the political Opposition to make calls for the resignation of their opposite numbers. Unless the matters are particularly egregious, media practitioners usually wait on others to make the call which they report, analyse or otherwise.

BUNTING SOAP OPERA

In recent practice, media have seemed interested in orchestrating such a crisis. First, it was the turn of the minister of national security: a series of editorials were written by at least one newspaper, The Gleaner, that cast doubt on the veracity of reports that there was a burglary in a house in Portland in which the minister and his guest had been staying. Elements in the media and the political Opposition suggested, instead, that there was a robbery and not a burglary.

Doubts were raised about what the minister and the police reported, without offering the word of witnesses or pointing in a direction in which statements could be collected. In the end, the storm in the teacup subsided without a trace. Instead, the burglar was arrested and charged and the matter went before the court. Without the evidence, media outlets then proceeded to write editorials that went further to suggest that the attitude of the minister national security, Peter Bunting, was cavalier and insensitive.

The Gleaner followed that series of editorials with a front-page story, quoting anonymous highly placed government sources, indicating that the minister of national security was one of the casualties of an impending Cabinet reshuffle. It read like an unsubtle attempt at publishing a political wish list. Predictably, nothing has come of the breaking news of a Cabinet reshuffle - if, in fact, it was indeed news. I suspect that media houses are not yet finished with that particular minister, who has invented MOCA. What has been seen so far may be nothing but the opening salvo.

AZAN MEDIA MANIA

Richard Azan was the next target, though one must concede that some of Mr Azan's wounds are self-inflicted. According to The Gleaner, "Mr Azan, the junior minister for transport, works and housing, and member of parliament for North West Clarendon, confessed that, without the power to do so and in breach of the Government's procurement regulations, he gave a contractor the 'authority' to build and rent shops in a market in his constituency. He further allowed his constituency office to be used as a rent-collection agency, even though, he insists, without personal gain."

However, The Gleaner sees an apparent parallel between Mr Azan and the Dudus affair. It says, "We wanted, after the sleaze of the Christopher Coke affair, to believe that there would be a new approach to governance." (Really?) It went further to suggest that the prime minister is a coward because she has failed to terminate Minister Azan for the incident that is still under investigation by the Office of the Contractor General.

All of this could be forgiven as such righteous indignation, or even youthful exuberance, on the part of the media, if there has been evidence of consistency on the part of the media with such matters. However, neither the treatment of similar matters in the past, nor of similar matters that ought to be in the public domain but are not, would allow a vote of confidence in the sincerity of those that handle these matters in the media.

Consider how the same media outlet handled the matter of Mabey & Johnson and Joseph Hibbert, who, like Azan, was a minister of state in the last administration. The allegations against Minister Hibbert were serious, and, but for the failures of the Office of DPP, Mr Hibbert might have faced criminal prosecution. Mr Hibbert did not resign until a full six months after Mabey & Johnson had pleaded guilty in a British court to bribing him, among others.

None of the media outlets considered it appropriate to level accusation of cowardice against then Prime Minister Bruce Golding for failure to terminate Hibbert. Instead, the media outlets published a rather sympathetic piece on Hibbert, highlighting the difficulties he was experiencing because of delays in his pension payment. Mr Azan is accused of a procedural breach and that matter is under investigation. Does the 'same knife that stick goat stick sheep' in the media?

DISSING THE PM

At the same time of the great to-do about Azan, the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) has made suggestions of an injury to press freedom. The PAJ has claimed that Prime Minister Simpson Miller is being shielded from them. To begin with, I believe that there ought to be certain protocols governing how the media treat the prime minister of this country.

I do not accept that in ostensible pursuit of the truth, journalists have some divine right to be discourteous and rude to those who are the people's representatives. I believe it is entirely inappropriate to shove a microphone in the face of the prime minister. To make excuses for rudeness and excesses in the name of the defence of freedom of the press is disingenuous and self-serving.

Media houses are now practising self-censorship, thus ensuring that only some opinions get airplay or are published. Truth and the pursuit of the public interest do not need the help of contrivances and rudeness.

Garnett Roper is president of the Jamaica Theological Seminary and chairman of the Jamaica Urban Transit Company. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garnettroper@hotmail.com.